The non-issue of gays marching up to ministers and priests, stun gun ready, forcing them to perform a marriage ceremony,
isn’t going to fade away, and don’t expect it to. It is the reddest of herrings, a dumb, phony non-entity invented to make points and hoodwink the gullible.

So some forms of bigotry and discrimination do, in fact, “know” religious boundaries. I could have said the same thing about slavery and racism in the south, too…being justified by the “good book”. Good indicators–they were, anyway.

But certain types of bigotry can pick out religious sentiments better than others. For example, accuracy in predicting some religious affiliation with a homophobic attitude is pretty spot on, and the same with sexist attitudes, as well. This indicates that while one need not be sexist and religious (jains, for example…but other religions are inextricably sexist like islam and christianity; it’s part of that religion for women to be subjugated and hence the reason why it’s so commonly preached and practiced in those religions), it’s not entirely distinct.

“No church should be forced to perform same gender marriages. None.”

Why is this being tossed into the ring? Your comment is moot. No Church has been asked to do so. This is about secular marriage, not religious marriage.

Can you name for us a specific instance in which a church has been forced to perform a same gender marriage?

And this provision is specific to religious bigotry… but I know atheists who oppose gay marriage and Mormons who support it… in the grander scheme of things bigotry knows no religious boundaries.

If it truly covers nothing more than existing Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion (and that’s as far as I think it does), then it’s redundant. If they want to pass statutes that echo Constitutional provisions, it’s no skin off my nose.

If, on the other hand, it goes further than Constitutional guarantees, then it probably can be construed as an illegitimate endorsement of religion, in which case, it will be gone soon.

As it is, it seems to permit the Knights of Columbus to refuse to rent out their hall for a same-sex wedding (as they are a religious organization, open only to Catholic men), but would not allow a member of the Knights of Columbus to refuse to rent out the function space in a hotel he owned.

If duplicating existing law gets us rights we deserve, I’m all for it.

Occasionally? Are you suggesting that if not for the religion inspired opposition to gay marriage and that constituency that this governor is responding to, this clause would still be added? Ridiculous. I assume that you’re not defending the clause, but your discontent with the entire law.

is already codified in the 1st Amendment.

Bigotry is codified in the first amendment? Whereabouts does the first amendment codify, explicitly, bigotry? Which federalist paper is this discussed in? Alexander Hamilton would disagree. I guess James Madison thought he had a vocal constituency of neo nazis that wanted the right to scream “kike” with a megaphone outside of a synagogue, and that’s why we have it, huh? I see no substantive difference between your suggestion and my example. The difference is that the first amendment applies to all and was included in the bill of rights to apply to ALL, and not just a select group of bigots to win cheap political points in an attempt to appear “fair” and “open minded”.

So, how is having a second law that has no effect on what has already been codified going to change anything?

Because it exists due to homophobic intolerance. That’s the difference. It lends the view that homosexuals aren’t worthy of equal rights or even to be viewed as people legitimacy with its inclusion as a direct result of that belief.

Right or wrong, we need to recognize which fights are worth fighting, and while I’d like nothing more than to see an end to bigotry (especially by those who would corrupt something so beautiful as faith and spirituality to suit their purposes),

Take WE out of there. I don’t consider you a fellow traveler, especially after that last bit of rubbish concerning your aiding and abeting religious extremism by yourself being one of them. Moderate=useless apologist, not someone who has any ability to make inroads or convince people of faith to be nice and not homophobic (that is a failed approach–completely failed). The moderate is viewed as a failed extremist by the extremist or even the conservative religionist.

right now gaining civil rights is much more important.

The way civil rights are obtained is also important. If racist opinions were included in the civil rights act of 1964, it would be similarly repugnant.

The bigots aren’t going anywhere, we’ll have time to deal with them… the politicians who are willing to support us could be out in a year for all we know… we need to take advantage of the support they’ll give us while we know they’re still here and on our side.

Yeah, anything we can get. I am not offended that we are getting marriage rights in NH, just at the way we have to sell out, essentially, to appease those who would deny us everything.

The governor’s request is reasonable.

Well, what you’re saying is that his request is as reasonable as the beliefs he’s responding to in making it. That’s indisputably false.

On the face of it, it says that the church couldn’t get sued for refusing to allow its facility to be used (being owned and operated by a religious organization). On the other hand, it does not require that choosing not to allow gay people use of the facility have no repercussions.

They could be stripped of the special tax status based on their choice to discriminate without being penalized for it specifically – just as the Boy Scouts were allowed to discriminate, and cannot be sued for doing so, but are not immune from local laws that don’t allow them special treatment.

Most people would look at that as a “penalty” but in fact, not meeting the requirements for special treatment, and therefore being treated like everyone else, is not legally a penalty.

So, how is having a second law that has no effect on what has already been codified going to change anything? Right or wrong, we need to recognize which fights are worth fighting, and while I’d like nothing more than to see an end to bigotry (especially by those who would corrupt something so beautiful as faith and spirituality to suit their purposes), right now gaining civil rights is much more important. The bigots aren’t going anywhere, we’ll have time to deal with them… the politicians who are willing to support us could be out in a year for all we know… we need to take advantage of the support they’ll give us while we know they’re still here and on our side.

The governor’s request is reasonable.

I believe that the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man/woman relationship but it appears that more than a few governors don’t believe the same thing. I accept it, move on, and realize that many are liberated by this legislation.

I feel that my home state of NJ may be the next to enact same same-sex legislation.

Even though I don’t necessarily agree I applaud these governors for standing up for what they believe in. With any mass movement it’s always the first few that have to make the toughest s because they are subject to the most criticism.

Ryan

The case in NJ would be no different than if the catholic church owned an apartment building in town and refused to rent to gay couples based on their religion. That’s illegal and that type of behavior should remain illegal in NH as well.

It’s all well and good if you want to be able to discriminate based on your religion. But, you better not take tax payer’s money (some of which comes from gay citizens) and also claim your facilities are open to the public while you are discriminating.

This whole point of adding religious exceptions is ridiculous if it extends outside of religious cerimonies in the church. When civil rights laws were passed the religious zealots were not in favor of them and claimed their religious beliefs required them to remain segregated. Did lawmakes go about writing exceptions into the law so they could continue to discriminate outside of their church in public accomodations? No, they didn’t

Should the YMCA be allowed to provide family discounts to straight families and deny them to gay families? NO WAY

Should a church that owns an apartment building be able to deny renting to a gay family? NO WAY. If you think they should, then should they also be allowed to deny renting to an inter-racial family if they claim their religion is against inter-racial marriage?

No church has ever been forced to perform a wedding for any couple gay or straight. Catholics deny weddings to straight couples all the time if one of the people is divorced. You don’t see them getting sued over it do you? Are straight baptists running around suing Catholic churches to marry them? No, they aren’t.

Should a florist who is open to the public be able to deny services to a gay couple? NO WAY. If they can, should they be able to deny services to a black couple if the owner’s church is part of the Arian Nation?

I guess the Knights of Columbus should be allowed to deny renting their hall to a gay couple for a reception, If and only if they ONLY rent to Catholic couples, as they are associated with the Catholic church. But, if they rent to the public in general, then they should be required to rent to ALL couples.

Cool. Whether it’s rundundant or not, let them have it if they need it for cover or to make themselves feel more comfortable.

Their opposition to same sex marriage will vanish as they dash about inventing new sacraments to bilk the dummies, er, the faithful.

Instead of bread and wine they could invent sacraments based on the themes of ritual masturbation, anal sex, cunnilingus and fellatio, all of which have a rich religious tradition. That way they’d be honest prostitutes.

Redundancy isn’t really a strong reason to object to including it though.

So, if it makes the religious feel more secure in their rights and diffuses a rally to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I say add the requested verbiage and let the bigots be bigots and let the queers start the celebrations!

I don’t think the state should be codifying religious discrimination. I wrote about this in the last NH piece. It would be better to deal with church concerns in a grandfather clause.

That said, I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to scuttle the Bill. And sure politics is childish; you have to learn how to coddle those babies to get the job done.

The bottom line was though that for all that preacher’s diligence in keeping “dirty” money out of god’s coffers all he got was some very bad press. He looked universally like the dinosaur that he is, and the choir got to perform in a nicer church that was happy to rent to them.

With the marriage debate finished up here, nobody was even arguing in his favour that “church rights” need defending. He seemed kind of isolated and mean, actually.

And agreed, it is a secondary and much less important issue than marriage equality itself.

Still protected with or without the language. It’s bullshit.

The community center is the issue. That’s what the new langage is allowing them to deny gay couple in connection with their marriage specifically — big deal! What sort of difference does that make that you would wish the man a slow humiliating death?

Again — I have had stage 4 Lymphoma. It was “slow and humiliating”, and I wouldn’t wish it on you or anyone.

In fact the reason I survived it was not that I was compliant to it but that I was strong enough to be flexible in my approach to it and to know when to fight it all out and when to conserve my strength. It’s something I can now apply in other situations, like the fight for marriage equality.

And by more progressive than obama, I mean in a different league entirely; given obama’s do nothing position, that’s not automatically a compliment.

And to acknowledge their empty concerns gives them credibility they don’t deserve. But hey, he’s more progressive than our commander and chief on gay issues, so perhaps I should rescind my knee jerk “I hope he gets cancer”.

No, not all of them, just the vast majority of them. I find it ridiculous.

Just adding to the argument that not all churches discriminate against marriage equality (I mentioned it because the UC is our largest protestant denomination) , and the number is rising in both our countries.
If you disagree or don’t find it relevant that is fine; I was talking to Chris.

Oh fuck yourself, please. We’ll see how that NJ case is resolved. They do have the right to deny same sex couples the right to be wed in a churche or a mosque or a synagogue. If you’re talking about some ridiculous community center owned and operated by parties affiliated with but separate from the actual religious body in question, then it gets dicey. But if they’re not offering something for the general public’s consumption and or accomodation, then I See no issue you’re raising.

Not all of it is. The United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Chruch, Reform Judism, and other religions perform marriage for gay couples.

Btw, Religious organizations do not have the right to deny the rental of their facilities at this point for civil unions/marriage (there is an NJ case is about this). This allows them to legally — that is a difference, a small difference, but a difference…that’s the same as the law in CT and VT — why are you so bent out of shape about it?

Were you looking forward to being wed at the Knights of Columbus and going to Father Flynn for marriage counseling when he throws his socks on the floor or forgets your birthday?

If the law needs a useless byzantine clause to make the fundies think they are protecting their interests (even if they aren’t threatened) I don’t care.
If it results in getting the necessary votes and doesn’t water down the legislation it does not matter.
The end product is the important thing.

BTW Cassandra was CORRECT in her prediction that Troy would fall; her curse is that no one believed her.

Religion is just a cover for institutionalized bigotry, plain and simple.

You are as bad as anyone who would say those things to us.

Btw, I am in remission (at the moment) with Lymphoma myself, it’s really nothing to joke about or wish on anyone.

(Of course the ammendment will pass, he worked out the language with the sponsors of the bill so why are you so angry about it? It also gives other states a template to deal with religious objections effectively.)